Jump to content

Time to Review the 53 Player Limit?


Recommended Posts

With the increased number of serious player injuries (because players are faster and bigger than ever), is it time for the league to review the rules about roster limits? I realize there are financial constraints to increasing roster limits, but what if the concept was packaged with the issue of the ridiculous contracts being given to rookies at the top of the draft? The union might find it more acceptable if much of the overpayment of rookies went into the pockets of backup players providing greater depth on teams. Even a modest increase of two or three additional roster spots would allow teams to have more guys who have been "working within their system" all year to cover for those injuries keeping guys out for a number of weeks. The benefits include allowing teams to keep aging veterans (who can still be good players) longer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the increased number of serious player injuries (because players are faster and bigger than ever), is it time for the league to review the rules about roster limits? I realize there are financial constraints to increasing roster limits, but what if the concept was packaged with the issue of the ridiculous contracts being given to rookies at the top of the draft? The union might find it more acceptable if much of the overpayment of rookies went into the pockets of backup players providing greater depth on teams. Even a modest increase of two or three additional roster spots would allow teams to have more guys who have been "working within their system" all year to cover for those injuries keeping guys out for a number of weeks. The benefits include allowing teams to keep aging veterans (who can still be good players) longer.

 

It actually seems reasonable and well thought out to me. Don't worry, someone will wander by and tell you why you are an idiot in a moment. :lol: Welcome to the board. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would that more benefit the teams with deep pockets as they could better afford a high paid 53rd player. Granted you still have a salary cap to work with, not sure how that would work?? Supposedly the reason for adding to 53 is to better level the playing field for teams with less money to spend, so one would then think along those lines, more is better?? But not certain of the impact?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the increased number of serious player injuries (because players are faster and bigger than ever), is it time for the league to review the rules about roster limits? I realize there are financial constraints to increasing roster limits, but what if the concept was packaged with the issue of the ridiculous contracts being given to rookies at the top of the draft? The union might find it more acceptable if much of the overpayment of rookies went into the pockets of backup players providing greater depth on teams. Even a modest increase of two or three additional roster spots would allow teams to have more guys who have been "working within their system" all year to cover for those injuries keeping guys out for a number of weeks. The benefits include allowing teams to keep aging veterans (who can still be good players) longer.

Welcome to the board!

 

This is a good idea. What i would love to see is a 4 week IR roster exemption. This would have been useful with Crowell and several players last year

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome to the board!

 

This is a good idea. What i would love to see is a 4 week IR roster exemption. This would have been useful with Crowell and several players last year

The IR thing was changed because teams would stash young players on IR instead of releasing them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the increased number of serious player injuries (because players are faster and bigger than ever), is it time for the league to review the rules about roster limits? I realize there are financial constraints to increasing roster limits, but what if the concept was packaged with the issue of the ridiculous contracts being given to rookies at the top of the draft? The union might find it more acceptable if much of the overpayment of rookies went into the pockets of backup players providing greater depth on teams. Even a modest increase of two or three additional roster spots would allow teams to have more guys who have been "working within their system" all year to cover for those injuries keeping guys out for a number of weeks. The benefits include allowing teams to keep aging veterans (who can still be good players) longer.

 

No need to as they only dress 45 + 1 3rd string QB...there are 7 players sitting out any game regardless...

 

maybe up the gameday limit a few players....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...